Proposal:4WD Only

The Feature Page for the approved proposal 4WD Only is located at Tag:4wd_only=yes

4wd_only
Proposal status:	Approved (active)
Proposed by:	gaffa
Tagging:	4wd_only=yes
Applies to:	ways
Definition:	Indicates that a way is suitable for 4WD vehicles only
Statistics:
Rendered as:	Addition of the text '(4WD only)' to the name of the way
Draft started:
Proposed on:	2008-11-29
RFC start:	2008-11-29
Vote start:	2009-08-05
Vote end:	2009-08-19

Proposal

Introduce a tag that allows ways to indicate explicitly whether a 4WD vehicle is required to navigate that way. This would also allow routing engines to take into account such ways, so that non-4WD vehicles aren't routed onto roads they aren't capable of. As many 4WD only roads are in rural or remote areas, if a passenger car gets stuck on such a road, it would be at the least a major inconvenience, and (in Australia at least) potentially fatal.

The addition of the words "(4WD only)" or the simpler and universal "(4WD)" after the road name would make identification of 4WD only roads very straight forward.

Tagging

4wd_only=yes

4wd_only=no

4wd_only=recommended

Definition of a 4WD

It is worth defining what is meant by 4WD for the purposes of this tag, given the proliferation of passenger vehicles that have 4 powered wheels.

In the context of this tag, a 4WD is taken to mean a vehicle designed for both on road and off road use, generally with:

• High clearance
• Some sort of centre differential lock capability (for the "soft roader" type vehicles)
• Low range gearbox
• Tyres that would be regarded as either "all terrain" or "mud terrain"

Examples of 4WD vehicles (these are the Australian names for them at least):

Toyota LandCruiser, Hilux or Tecoma, Nissan Patrol and Navara, Gaz and Kamaz trucks, Land Rovers, Range Rover Discovery, Mitsubishi Pajero, Maruti Gypsy

Examples of "soft roader" 4WD vehicles:

Toyota Rav4 and Kluger, Volvo XC series, Nissan X-Trail, Tata Safari

What's not a 4WD for the purposes of this tag:

Lamborghini Murcielago, Audi A4, Nissan GTR etc. If you look at the vehicle and think "there's no way that car could cross a 1.5 foot deep river", then it probably doesn't count as a 4WD off road vehicle.

Rationale

Currently there are a number of either approved tags or proposed tags that attempt to cover the smoothness, surface or other properties of a way, which in turn implies the potential suitability of the road for different vehicle types.

However, there is no way of currently tagging a way in any obvious, visible or easily understood method that indicates a 4WD vehicle is required. The ability to determine easily whether the road condition is viable for standard cars/truck/buses is not currently available in the map.

While the highway=track and track_type=gradeX tags can be used to determine this, this approach forces all 4WD only roads to be classed as a track irrespective of their actual classification. In Australia, there are a number of major roads which are classed as either primary or secondary that are also 4WD only roads (eg: the Peninsula Developmental Road between Daintree and Weipa in far north Queensland, and the Buntine Highway in Western Australia)

Comments

Please use the discussion page for comments.

Voting

Voting is now closed

• I oppose this proposal. -- Because this tag is a duplicate of smoothness=* value horrible. If this tag was meant for legal access, then okay. Agreed with information bellow, for legal access 4wd=yes, or offroader=yes would be more inline with access syntax (but it seams to me this proposition is not about legal access, so it might not be the good place to discuss it ) Sletuffe 12:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. -- If this is a legal access restriction it should be something more in line with access=* -- I suggest access=no+offroad=yes or 4wd=yes. --Hawke 20:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- It's verifiable and very useful. "4WD Only" has a specific meaning, and this tag is the most succinct, most accurate way of recording it. --Waldo000000 21:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- if there are signs that say 4wd-only, why not tag this as an attribute to the road? Dieterdreist 00:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. if it is a legal access that is ment, than it should be changed in line with other tags in access=*, if this tag is meant as an advise I disaprove it all together. --Skippern 01:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. For recording the signs, 4wd_only=* seems appropriate for now, but if it's a legal restriction, 4wd_only can be the calling name of that subcategory of motorcars (but rather 4wd or off-roader) and then these roads should be tagged primarily as motorcar=no too, and then allowed to the subcategory of 4wd vehicles motorcar:4wd=yes (or similar), to be consistent with all other legal access restrictions. Alv 06:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. -- Riechfield 08:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Given I started this proposal, I'm going to approve it. The alternative smoothness=* is a complete clusterf&*%, that really gives no useful surface information. Gaffa 11:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- It's really simple you need to have a 4wd as described above to traverse this road, it's got nothing to do with the smoothness or otherwise of the road surface. --Rosscoe 01:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- I have tagged several ways recently that are clearly 4WD, but it would be very useful to add this information clearly. Mrpulley 02:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- As it is written "4WD Only" on signs, it doesn't state "Offroad Only", and this tag is already in use. Delta foxtrot2 03:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- This sounds like a reasonable way of tagging roads that have "4WD only" signs. --Doctau 11:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- This tag is essential for use in rural and remote Australia -- User:Drlizau 21:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Motorist need a simple clarification, whilst the smoothness tag can give greater detail I think the 4WD symbol would be more appropriate.
• I approve this proposal. -- A variety of Australian roads are classified in this way (esp. in national parks). This tag is a concise representation of this. J_stirk
• I approve this proposal. -- johnc 00:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. -- I don't like this proposal due to 4wd being a confusing term (not for us Australians though, but OSM is bigger than AU) and it not being clear whether this is for access signs (only/recommended/banned) or as a subjective assessment (like the surface debacle). I would support an offroad/offroad_vehicle like tag name together with making it clear its for signs only. Wikipedia seems to use the term Off-road vehicle for this very purpose. BlueMM 01:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. -- I agree with BlueMM, an offroad_vehicle / offroad tag would better suit this, as 4WD is more of an Australian slang for offroad vehicle rather than all-wheel drive. Rhubarb 03:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--An offroad_vehicle tag is confusing, it implies that the vehicle does not need to be registered, where 4wd_only is nice and clear. --Laughton.andrew 06:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. -- this tag is a duplicate of smoothness=* tag (smoothness tag need better descriptions and photos, but it is not reason for new tag). --Citrin 09:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. -- I agree with Citrin. If it is a legal restriction, it should be under access. If it is physical, under smoothness. If this is for crossing rivers, that should be clear from the river having a common node with the highway. Sebastiaan 13:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Final Tally

no: 9

yes: 12

total: 21

Minimum of 15 votes was satisfied and majority were for the proposal